Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[The Dark Lord]

The point is, once again, "a multi-touch gesture" didn't get a patent.

That's what I'm on about.

So Apple didn't get a patent about a multi-touch gesture that involves using two figures to scroll with in a frame or whatever? If that is not the case, fine. I had assumed it was because Avalon was talking about it earlier.

 

[Horatius]

So Apple didn't get a patent about a multi-touch gesture that involves using two figures to scroll with in a frame or whatever? If that is not the case, fine. I had assumed it was because Avalon was talking about it earlier.

Well, at least you're getting closer. Add a few more limiting clauses, and you'll be approaching what Apple actually patented.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Oh, yes, of course, sure, except...that's not what he was talking about:

And they clearly didn't copy anything "exactly" hardware wise. They also clearly didn't copy the software overall "exactly". And they didn't copy parts of the software "exactly" unless they had the code.

 

[BenBurch]

How exactly would Samsung engineers copy what Apple did "exactly" without the code?

They could look at the product, think it had good ideas and try to implement them in their own ways. Assuming they "copied" the iPhone that is exactly what they did. And I fail to see the problem. This is how technology progresses. In other industries, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

I tell you now that if you gave me an iPhone 5 and a budget, I could, without having one line of the source code, give you a clone so close that many people would be fooled, and have it in quantity delivery by February.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Well, at least you're getting closer. Add a few more limiting clauses, and you'll be approaching what Apple actually patented.

So I was right. They did patents a multi-touch gesture. Which I just described although not in detail. If not, feel free to explain.

I don't think such a thing should be patentable.

 

[Wangler]

You do not need the source code.

You do not need the hardware design.

You can do all this from a black box inspection of a prototype or retail item.

As Apple well knows.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I tell you now that if you gave me an iPhone 5 and a budget, I could, without having one line of the source code, give you a clone so close that many people would be fooled, and have it in quantity delivery by February.

And if you did, it would not be an "exact" copy software wise. Hardware wise, yeah, you could maybe swing that.

Of course, Samsung phones don't look at all like they are "exact" copies of the iPhone.

 

[Horatius]

How exactly would Samsung engineers copy what Apple did "exactly" without the code?

They could look at the product, think it had good ideas and try to implement them in their own ways. Assuming they "copied" the iPhone that is exactly what they did. And I fail to see the problem. This is how technology progresses. In other industries, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

See, this is why you need to understand the different types of intellectual property, and what they cover, and do not cover, particularly when it comes to computer-implemented inventions.

The patent covers the basic idea they had - using a particular type of gesture to manipulate a particular type of data laid out in a particular way. Copyright would cover the code they wrote to implement that method in software.

Sure, you could probably come up many different ways to program that described functionality - anyone who's ever taken a programming course knows different people come up with some very different coding to solve the same problem.

But that's why the computer industry wasn't happy with only having copyright protection - which was all they had for a long time. They wanted patent protection, because they were seeing people copying their ideas, not just their source code.

Should I have been allowed to market a perfect clone of Pac-Man 6 months after Pac-Man took the world by storm, without paying them any royalties, just because I programmed the source code all by myself?

 

[WildCat]

As Apple well knows.

But when Apple does it it's called "innovation".

 

[WildCat]

Should I have been allowed to market a perfect clone of Pac-Man 6 months after Pac-Man took the world by storm, without paying them any royalties, just because I programmed the source code all by myself?

By Apple's reasoning no one else should be able to make a video game where one thing eats another thing.

 

[BenBurch]

And if you did, it would not be an "exact" copy software wise. Hardware wise, yeah, you could maybe swing that.

Of course, Samsung phones don't look at all like they are "exact" copies of the iPhone.

They just need to look and work alike.

The design I refer to is not the code, and is not the hardware. Those are embodiments of the design. You can embody a design in a lot of different ways, and the way you choose is usually determined by the tension between performance and cheapness.

The design is the way the device interacts with the user, and how it makes itself controllable by the user and how it presents data to the user and how it deals with the results of that interaction.

This is how you touch it. How it reacts. It's shape. It's weight. And the unexpected things it does for example realizing that the numbers in an email are in the format of a telephone number, and making that touchable to dial the number.

 

[Horatius]

So I was right. They did patents a multi-touch gesture. Which I just described although not in detail. If not, feel free to explain.

I don't think such a thing should be patentable.

Earlier in the thread I linked to a thread where we've discussed this exact issue before. In that thread, read this post of mine:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7490338#post7490338


You say, "Which I just described although not in detail". The point is, you have to describe the details. Every detail had legal weight, and acts to limit the scope of the patent protection.

Here's a breakdown of the main independent claim of that patent.

Claim 1 of the Apple patent
A method, comprising:

1) at a portable multifunction device

2)with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display;

3)displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display,

4)wherein the portion of web page content includes:

4a)a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and

4b)other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content;

5)detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display;

6)in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display,

6a)wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page;

7)detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and

7a)in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.

This is a very limited patent. Anyone making a competing smart phone who can't figure out how to not include this functionality isn't smart enough to be making smart phones in the first place.

Seriously - this is one particular type of gesture, used in one particular way, on one particular type of data, with the data displayed in one particular arrangement. It does absolutely nothing to stop other companies from using the same gesture to control different functionality, or using different gestures to control the same functionality. Heck, it doesn't even stop you from using the same gesture, to implement the same functionality, but apply it to a different kind of data (although that last one will admittedly still get you sued, just probably not successfully).

 

[The Dark Lord]

See, this is why you need to understand the different types of intellectual property, and what they cover, and do not cover, particularly when it comes to computer-implemented inventions.

The patent covers the basic idea they had - using a particular type of gesture to manipulate a particular type of data laid out in a particular way. Copyright would cover the code they wrote to implement that method in software.

Sure, you could probably come up many different ways to program that described functionality - anyone who's ever taken a programming course knows different people come up with some very different coding to solve the same problem.

But that's why the computer industry wasn't happy with only having copyright protection - which was all they had for a long time. They wanted patent protection, because they were seeing people copying their ideas, not just their source code.

I think I understand fine. I just don't think an idea like a multi-touch gesture should be patentable. In other industries, basic ideas like that do no get patents, just their specific implementations. I am not a patent expert so maybe I am wrong about that, if so please explain.

Should I have been allowed to market a perfect clone of Pac-Man 6 months after Pac-Man took the world by storm, without paying them any royalties, just because I programmed the source code all by myself?

No.

But Samsung phones are not perfect clones of the iPhone. Not even close.

 

[Horatius]

By Apple's reasoning no one else should be able to make a video game where one thing eats another thing.

...in a maze, while being chased by ghosts, looking like a pie with a piece missing, and making "waka waka waka" sounds.

But then, I've given up hope that you'll ever understand that.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Earlier in the thread I linked to a thread where we've discussed this exact issue before. In that thread, read this post of mine:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7490338#post7490338


You say, "Which I just described although not in detail". The point is, you have to describe the details. Every detail had legal weight, and acts to limit the scope of the patent protection.

Here's a breakdown of the main independent claim of that patent.





This is a very limited patent. Anyone making a competing smart phone who can't figure out how to not include this functionality isn't smart enough to be making smart phones in the first place.

Seriously - this is one particular type of gesture, used in one particular way, on one particular type of data, with the data displayed in one particular arrangement. It does absolutely nothing to stop other companies from using the same gesture to control different functionality, or using different gestures to control the same functionality. Heck, it doesn't even stop you from using the same gesture, to implement the same functionality, but apply it to a different kind of data (although that last one will admittedly still get you sued, just probably not successfully).

OK. I don't think that Apple be able to be the only ones to use that idea. It is not worthy of a patent.

They did get the patent though. And maybe Samsung infringed. I doubt very much that Apple suffered any actual damages (that people bought Samsung phones instead of iPhones because of this). So they should get a token reward of $1.

 

[Horatius]

OK. I don't think that Apple be able to be the only ones to use that idea. It is not worthy of a patent.

Okay, now you just have to explain why you think that, and then convince either the courts or the legislature to agree with you.

But just make sure the changes to patent law you end up promoting don't screw over anyone you do think deserves a patent.

 

[The Dark Lord]

They just need to look and work alike.

The design I refer to is not the code, and is not the hardware. Those are embodiments of the design. You can embody a design in a lot of different ways, and the way you choose is usually determined by the tension between performance and cheapness.

The design is the way the device interacts with the user, and how it makes itself controllable by the user and how it presents data to the user and how it deals with the results of that interaction.

This is how you touch it. How it reacts. It's shape. It's weight. And the unexpected things it does for example realizing that the numbers in an email are in the format of a telephone number, and making that touchable to dial the number.

Of course, Samsung phones are not only different than iPhones, they are better.

Yeah, they probably looked at the iPhone and took ideas from it. So what. So does everybody else. Android had pull down notifications since the beginning, I think. Then suddenly the iPhone has it in iOS5 (I think). Is that OK for some reason? Personally, I think it is fine. But somehow when Google/Samsung borrows ideas from Apple, all their products need to be pulled from the shelves immediately and they need to pay huge damages?

 

[The Dark Lord]

Okay, now you just have to explain why you think that, and then convince either the courts or the legislature to agree with you.

But just make sure the changes to patent law you end up promoting don't screw over anyone you do think deserves a patent.

I think it is a basic idea an a basic idea like that should not get get patents. It seems like that is how it works everywhere else except for software.

 

[The Dark Lord]

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
-Steve Jobs

Of course, when he thought that somebody stole their ideas, it was time for "thermonuclear war".

Amazing.

 

[WildCat]

...in a maze, while being chased by ghosts, looking like a pie with a piece missing, and making "waka waka waka" sounds.

But then, I've given up hope that you'll ever understand that.

If that's the case Apple has no case. Because Samsung phones look and perform nothing like iPhones. In fact it's the next iPhone that is copying Samsung ideas such as larger screens.

Are you under the impression that Samsung phones and Apple phones are identical?